These spoilt little rich kids, squealing about "CLIMATE CATASTROPHE! IMMINENT DANGER OF EXTINCTION OF HUMAN LIFE ON PLANET EARTH!!!" , why don't they do a bit of research as to the relative proportions of Greenhouse Gas emissions (assuming for now that that really is the cause, and ignoring for now that they've been predicting climate change catastrophe for a good 30 years now, and still none of their predictions of imminent apocalypse have actually come true) from various sources and which countries are most responsible for the production of same, rather than disrupting everybody in London? Why don't they chain themselves to railings in Delhi or Beijing, for example?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

keithisco 4,702

keithisco
4,702

Subsidise alternative energy sources. Invest in R&D for these. Subsidise public transport to bring prices down instead of profits up.

I've got 3 too!

you know what the problem is with your suggestion and that is who is going to pay? The "Climate Protesters" appear not to have jobs and will have sullied their future opportunities by embracing the "need" to get arrested.

Privately owned corporations have, and still are investing billions in clean technology but things dont happen overnight in Engineering. One big imponderable in all these things is down to what happens with Solar Forcing over which we have no control whatsoeverand can scupper the best intentions overnight.

There is a much bigger picture to consider

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

stevewinn 9,091

stevewinn
9,091

Government Agent

Member

9,091

14,002 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Liverpool, England

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

The UK is a world leader in cutting emissions, so the problem isnt in the UK, its the likes of your Chinas, and on that point. I see these protestors now include a silly virtue signalling actress. Let them protest in China where it is really needed and see how far they get.

Quote

The UK has been one of biggest cutters of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Since 1990 UK carbon emissions are down by 43% compared to a target of 40%. The UK met its first carbon budget in 2008-12 and outperformed targets in the second budget 2013-17. All looks good for outperforming again in the current budget up to 2022. In contrast Germany was only trying to get 40% below 1990 by 2020 but is a long way off hitting that target, last seen only 27% below. German carbon output is more than twice the UK’s. China and the USA are the two largest worldwide contributors.
If we look at carbon dioxide per head the USA at 15.7 , Germany at 9.7, China at 7.7, Russia at 12.3 and the EU average at 7.0 are all well above the UK at 5.7. This is a global issue which needs global policies. The UK is active in pressing for international targets and agreements. It makes little sense for one country to cut back if others do not, and even less sense if a country like the UK cuts back on its own use of energy for production and transport, only to import items that are energy intensive from elsewhere. It is bad for UK jobs and the balance of payments if we uniquely have dear energy that prices industry out of the UK.
The UK government claims to be the greenest ever, and has put a lot of effort into technological alternatives to encourage fuel saving and substitution. The EDM does not recognise any of this. It does ask the government to make more money available for a “green deal”. I would need to know how much is being sought and how it is proposed it should be spent. I am always happy to support initiatives to promote fuel saving and would be willing to look at further good suggestions. We need to avoid initiatives that do not make overall net reductions, or destroy jobs and create fuel poverty.
As the EDM says, the good news is we all have access to technology which means we can make a difference ourselves. Ultimately it is about how we all live our own lives. I have taken action to curb draughts and heat loss at home. I try to buy locally sourced food as it makes little sense to bring in food from the continent by ferry or airfreight when we can grow it nearby. I have improved my heating controls and heat my home to lower average temperatures by flexing the temperature to my use of the rooms. I have proposed removing VAT on all green products once we are out of the EU and allowed to do so, as I want better draught excluders, insulation materials and control systems to be cheaper and more accessible.
The public is keen to see cleaner air by setting higher standards on particulates and smoke, and to pursue commonsense policies to promote better insulation, greater fuel efficiency and fewer food miles. It is also important for individuals to choose to limit family size if they care about the demands on planetary resources. The UK rightly does not favour any government controls on such matters in the way China did for many years. Governments can help create a climate where people self impose sensible limits on population growth in the interests of sustainability and limiting demands on resources, and can control migration levels.

The UK is a world leader in cutting emissions, so the problem isnt in the UK, its the likes of your Chinas, and on that point. I see these protestors now include a silly virtue signalling actress. Let them protest in China where it is really needed and see how far they get.

And the reason China is increasing emissions is because it has a massive population who want to have lights and heating on all day and night, just like we do, whilst they make more and more cheap consumers gadgets for us to buy - including the mobile phones the protesters communicate with ......

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tatetopa 8,548

Tatetopa
8,548

If those things are viable and profitable there is no need for we tax payers to subsidize them. If they are not viable and profitable then they’re a bad idea and a waste of time

Is insurance profitable or simply a way to reduce risk in the face of catastrophe? If your calculation is that we can pay nothing or pay for insurance, it makes no sense to give your money to an insurance company. If you are cautious and can foresee possible large expenses to your home or business in the future due to for example rising sea level or the increasing severity of storms and flooding, the calculation is different. Insurance is a payment you make as a wise investment.

Maybe conversions away from carbon make sense if you calculate it against the cost of inundation of coastal cities

But what guarantees do we have that disaster will strike? Probably not enough to satisfy those deeply invested in the present order. So because humans are short sighted, greedy, and not good at dealing with complexity, we are probably fukt anyway. So party on until the lights go out.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

stevewinn 9,091

stevewinn
9,091

Government Agent

Member

9,091

14,002 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Liverpool, England

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

OverSword 40,931

OverSword
40,931

Like any young technology, they need investment for development to make them profitable.

You do know oil companies already get plenty in subsidies. If they're not viable either, why not go for an equally unviable but less polluting alternative.

I’m not in agreement with those subsidies either. We have billionaires who can’t wait to be the next tycoon in greener energy and it will happen. Once it does they can start charging me. I don’t like the idea of giving my money allegedly to save the planet but in reality so a rich guy can get richer without risking his own assets

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Setton 4,892

Setton
4,892

I’m not in agreement with those subsidies either. We have billionaires who can’t wait to be the next tycoon in greener energy and it will happen. Once it does they can start charging me. I don’t like the idea of giving my money allegedly to save the planet but in reality so a rich guy can get richer without risking his own assets

I totally get your point. Unfortunately, the bottom line is, we need to get these technologies developed as fast as we can. We might just have to swallow our distaste and give the rich yet more money.

Share on other sites

OverSword 40,931

OverSword
40,931

Is insurance profitable or simply a way to reduce risk in the face of catastrophe? If your calculation is that we can pay nothing or pay for insurance, it makes no sense to give your money to an insurance company. If you are cautious and can foresee possible large expenses to your home or business in the future due to for example rising sea level or the increasing severity of storms and flooding, the calculation is different. Insurance is a payment you make as a wise investment.

Not the same thing. Government subsidizing business is not necessary to develop these technologies. What is necessary is for the investment to be a good idea. If it is then believe me, there is some entrepreneur out there that would love to be the Andrew Carnegie of green energy. If they can do that without risking their own money that is the smart choice for them but a ripoff for we commoners. I am 100% against the government subsidizing wealthy peoples business ventures just so that they can make billions then spend said billions lobbying the government to continue to do things in the interest of wealthy business and at the expense of we little guys

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tatetopa 8,548

Tatetopa
8,548

Not the same thing. Government subsidizing business is not necessary to develop these technologies. What is necessary is for the investment to be a good idea. If it is then believe me, there is some entrepreneur out there that would love to be the Andrew Carnegie of green energy. If they can do that without risking their own money that is the smart choice for them but a ripoff for we commoners. I am 100% against the government subsidizing wealthy peoples business ventures just so that they can make billions then spend said billions lobbying the government to continue to do things in the interest of wealthy business and at the expense of we little guys

Clumsy I know, but my point is this: insurance may not be profitable today, but it may be a wise investment in risk avoidance for tomorrow. So too may be policies that mitigate future risk.

The government could invest money in research that might give any manufacturing entity a more efficient way to produce energy. That might be an opportunity for many smart people to find. Or the government could change the existing flow of trillions of dollars into a more free market channel.

One doesn't have to give subsidies to new industries to change behavior. In fact some existing subsidies can be removed that might save the taxpayers billions. A government does not necessarily need to put money in a new billionaires pocket, they can stop putting it in old billionaires' pockets though.

Eliminate the oil and gas depletion allowance. If a company doesn't get a tax deduction for depleting resources, then the resource becomes more valuable and market driven. Then the company cannot depend on a handout from the taxpayers so they handle their resource and price it with care. If the real free market price of gasoline without government subsidy becomes $6.00 per gallon, that is capitalism at work. Then alternatives may become more profitable.

Eliminate government assistance for flood insurance. Get rid of the NFIP. Communities either take precautions against floods or they don't build in 100 year flood plains. Let people who want to take the risk have the freedom to do it do it, don't stick the taxpayers with the bill for loss. Let insurance companies set their rates appropriately.

Change laws so that true cost of responsibility is assigned to those that have profited and caused damage. For example, force coal mining companies to pay the cost to clean up downstream community water supplies that their flooded settling ponds produce, Don't assume the government and hence the taxpayer stuck for the bill. We talk a lot about individual responsibility, does it apply to corporations? Coal companies going bankrupt? Free enterprise at work, incompetent and careless operators get forced out.

And the reason China is increasing emissions is because it has a massive population who want to have lights and heating on all day and night, just like we do, whilst they make more and more cheap consumers gadgets for us to buy - including the mobile phones the protesters communicate with ......

Well, that and a serious lack of environmental regulations and oversight. You don't create "smog cities" by leaving too many lights on. We are bickering about solar panels and CFL bulbs while Mexico dumps blue jean dye in to the local river and China literally dumps boatloads of garbage in to the Pacific ocean on the daily. How many millions can I donate to offset that?

"Green energy" isn't going to save us but stopping wanton pollution by the developing world might.